Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
REUNION To honor Valentyna Perejaslavec on her 50th anniversary as prima ballerina and to celebrate 25 years of her effort with the Ballet Theater, former students, friends and admirers of the artist staged a reunion recently at the Ukrainian Na tional Home in New York. The party was sprung as a surprise, at which Madame Perejaslavec received glowing acclama tions for her many years of work in the field of dance and choreography. V. Pereiaslavets am ong he r students and th e ir families. Prima ballerina Valentyna Pereiaslavets am ong her Ukrainian students. physical places, acceptable to the Navy, where she can practice and develop at least some of her job skills. Natoka Peden’s case is another example of the Navy’s dis criminatory treatment of women. Peden sought training in spe cialized diving techniques, but found entrance to job opportu nities in this field altogether beyond her reach. On the basis of 6015, the Navy refused to admit her to the training program. For many women like Peden who would like to pursue careers in oceanography when they leave the Navy, the ramifications of the situation are most serious. The policy, in effect, denies them the means to get the training they need in order to qualify for good civilian jobs— a privilege that men in military service have always enjoyed. Yet another woman in the Navy who has faced sex discri mination is Joellen Drag. Ballyhooed by the Navy as their first female helicopter copilot, most of her experience behind a he licopter control board has been limited to posing for publicity shots. Once the photographers left, Drag found that the Navy wanted her to remain outside the cockpit. When she reached her first duty station, 6015 caught up with her chances to fly. Not only can she not serve on supply ships, the principal work of her squadron, but also— according to JAG interpretations of the statute— she cannot land on an aircraft carrier, no matter how briefly, nor even hover over it. Problems of this same nature develop for all women officers when they try to find challenging jobs, whether on shore or at sea, in the Navy. Most of these choice positions re quire that the applicant be "eligible for command at sea.” No woman can fulfill the requirements so long as 6015 remains on the books. Thus, females are barred from the most desirable jobs— the jobs, by the way, most crucial for advancement. At present, a class action suit has been filed against the Navy challenging the Constitutionality of 6015. Owens v. Brown— in which Owens, Peden and Drag as well as other Navy women, have been named as plaintiffs— is but one of a series of suits against the military on the Women’s Rights Project’s docket. Others include: Beeman v. M iddendorf, in which a fe male customs officer is suing the Navy for preventing her from boarding one of their ships; M arch v. Rumsfeld, a suit against the Army, Army Reserve and Air Force; and in preparation is a suit on behalf of Virginia Todd and Rochelle Creegan, captains in the Army who suffered discriminatory assignments and harassment in Army Intelligence. The Women’s Rights Project has chosen equality for women in the military as one of its priority projects. Their reason for doing so is twofold. First, the armed services are one of the last bastions of sexism and, thus, an obvious target for sex discrimation suits. Second, the military has traditionally served as a means to training and education impossible for many to attain in the civilian world. By denying female enlistees the right to such training and experience on the job, the military is preventing them from de veloping skills they could translate into high-paying jobs when they become veterans. The impact of the discriminatory practices is therefore far-reaching and long-term and so would be the favorable verdicts if handed down in these cases. + Margaret Mead once noted that power and money accrue to an activity not according to the societal value and productivity of that activity, but rather according to who performed it. Mead is, of course, right. The skills required of a secretary— a job that has come to be regarded as a typically female position— are more diversified and specialized than those of an assembly line workman— traditionally thought of as a man’s job. Yet, the assembly worker earns significantly more than a secretary. Moreover, Mead’s principle can be applied to move the argument even one step further. As reported by the U. S. Department of Labor, statistics show more men entering fields which have come to be regarded as traditionally female. There was an increase in th number of male secretaries from 17,000 in 1965 to 29,000 in 1975. According to the Bureau’s survey, the average weekly salary for a male secretary is $179. Female sec retaries receive an average weekly salary of $145. НАШЕ ЖИТТЯ, КВІТЕНЬ 1977 21
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
